If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm always wondering why this stuff can't be integrated in one GPU anyways. A simple gpu for the composited desktop and a real 3D unit which can be completely switched off. Or something more integrated: why can't maybe 98% of those processing "cores" be disabled on low workload. There should be a lower idle consumption be possible than AMD's current 5xx0 series has (>15W).

I'm always wondering why this stuff can't be integrated in one GPU anyways. A simple gpu for the composited desktop and a real 3D unit which can be completely switched off. Or something more integrated: why can't maybe 98% of those processing "cores" be disabled on low workload. There should be a lower idle consumption be possible than AMD's current 5xx0 series has (>15W).

The issue is that you need to run the memory at some relatively high clock in order to feed the framebuffer with data (1920x1200 at 60fps = 527MB/sec) and this takes power.

However, with IGPs being integrated into CPUs right as we speak, the future might look quite different. The output signal could always be routed through the IGP (so no display hardware on the dedicated GPU) and the extra GPU could only be fired up when the load becomes too heavy for the IGP. Something similar to the Voodoo2-era 3d accelerator add-on cards, in fact.

Sounds easy. Why is it not in the ATi Drivers? Besides the neverseen PowerXpress ("Available on notebook PCs using Windows Vista® OS")

Can anyone please tell the developers at ATi what CUSTOMERS want? And make sure, that the marketing guys are stuck in snow somewhere, so they don't disturbing the devs with useless things.

Who do you think actually drives the requirements? How much does the OEM implementation affect the driver architecture?

Marketing is either forward looking (how I can sell more widgets), or complementary to a customer (I need to meet this requirement for to help a customer sell more widgets). Note that as a supplier, the customer is really the OEM.

Who do you think actually drives the requirements? How much does the OEM implementation affect the driver architecture?

Marketing is either forward looking (how I can sell more widgets), or complementary to a customer (I need to meet this requirement for to help a customer sell more widgets). Note that as a supplier, the customer is really the OEM.

In the end, this is why we don't have as much support as we ought to with things in the world. The OEMs are still dancing to the tune of Microsoft's whims- and thereby companies like AMD have to dance to it, even if they don't fully want to. If they don't they don't sell to their customers (we're not their customers...we're HP's, etc. unless we're buying bulk quantities of GPUs from them...HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. are their customers...) they don't sell much.

So you're going to have to convince the OEMs to work at getting things more straightened out.

As for not supporting Optimus, that was something of a poor decision on NVidia's part- even if I understand the motivations behind them choosing that. They're going with what the OEMs are asking for- the main reason we have drivers is the workstation market and Optimus isn't likely to be used in that space. So, no driver support for it for us.

All this means is more room for AMD to get it's act together on things- and take the market segment from them (and there IS one, it's just not on your OEM's radar...). I WAS going to get a new laptop with NVidia because of the stuff just largely working on Linux (AMD's proprietary drivers have in the past been iffy in varying areas...and rumors of issues with suspend on the mobile parts has me still thinking there's still a bit to be done...) - but if they're going to play that game, I might have to reconsider that decision.

Who do you think actually drives the requirements? How much does the OEM implementation affect the driver architecture?

Well, it seems that the customer is not the important role in this industry. It's like with a programmer, his program and the user. The user does ALWAYS disturb.

Marketing is either forward looking (how I can sell more widgets), or complementary to a customer (I need to meet this requirement for to help a customer sell more widgets). Note that as a supplier, the customer is really the OEM.

Well, without being too aggressive, the marketing of AMD has proven SEVERAL times, that the customer (=people, not OEM) are nothing they care about (e.g. no netbook-GPU/CPU, no low power consumption CPUs, the 48xx series with incredible idle power consumption, no fast and passive graphic cards (I own a passive 3870. The last one was a 4670, I think, which is a 3870 indeed), etc.).

And OEMs have proven SEVERAL times, that the customer is nothing they care about either (glare displays for example).

So where in this list is the customer?
What can I do as customer tog et what I want? Buying AMD?

And OEMs have proven SEVERAL times, that the customer is nothing they care about either (glare displays for example).

Bit of a bad example with the displays. I recall when I was at Apple and the option of glare display was given on the Macbook Pro's at a no cost option. It was about 50/50 split there to which people prefer.

Well, without being too aggressive, the marketing of AMD has proven SEVERAL times, that the customer (=people, not OEM) [snip]

Actually, the vast majority people buy PCs/laptops through OEMs. That's kinda the reason why we have Dell, HP, Asus, Acer, Fujitsu/Siemens, IBM/Lenovo, Sony, Apple and the rest all fighting in the same market.

(Just wanted that out in the open, since it may not always be obvious to those of us who build their own systems.)

[...] are nothing they care about (e.g. no netbook-GPU/CPU, no low power consumption CPUs, the 48xx series with incredible idle power consumption, no fast and passive graphic cards (I own a passive 3870. The last one was a 4670, I think, which is a 3870 indeed), etc.).

Ugh, hasn't it passed your mind that that current technology may not afford a high-end passively-cooled card, low idle power 48xx cards and netbook CPU/GPUs? Power consumption was actually fixed in 58xx, netbook-level CPUs sheduled for late 2010 / early 2011 and passive high-end cards... well, they aren't possible. You cannot dissipate 200W without a fan in the confines of a desktop case.

I mean, it's crazy - do you think AMD wouldn't sell netbook CPUs if it could? Designing this stuff takes time and there's only so much AMD can do with its current resources. It's a great company, but it's not Intel.

(Not to mention that noone could anticipate the success of the netbook/Atom combo before-hand. This market sprang out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise.)

Ugh, hasn't it passed your mind that that current technology may not afford a high-end passively-cooled card, low idle power 48xx cards and netbook CPU/GPUs? Power consumption was actually fixed in 58xx, netbook-level CPUs sheduled for late 2010 / early 2011 and passive high-end cards... well, they aren't possible. You cannot dissipate 200W without a fan in the confines of a desktop case.

Well, the 3870 was AMDs highend card when I bought it, low idle power has to be a constraint when designing a card (AMD proved years before with the low idle power of athlon64 compared to PentiumIV that it is important and possible), netbook-level CPUs are scheduled YEARS after needed and Intel is dominating the mobile market for how long? Any REAL competitor for the centrino platform anywhere? AMD must be blind not to see this (or did Intel patented low power CPUs?)

I mean, it's crazy - do you think AMD wouldn't sell netbook CPUs if it could? Designing this stuff takes time and there's only so much AMD can do with its current resources. It's a great company, but it's not Intel.

That's the point! I don't know why AMD has no competitive product in the mobile sectors for years, why they only sell the new 25W CPUs to OEMs, why they did not sell the 3800+ X2 EE SFF at its time to normal people, why they release a graphic card with horrible idle power, why they release graphic cards with broken power management, why they advertise the phenom I as the "uber overclocking CPU at 4 Ghz" month before release, why they advertise the Phenom II as the uber overclocking CPU at 7(?) Ghz, but not being able to deliver 4Ghz stock CPUs, etc. pp.

Don't ask me! Ask AMD!
And the decision of selling CPUs only to a specific group is PURE marketing (ok, a little tech stuff, when they aren't able to produce enough)!